Mike's recent post about eco-cement jogged my memory about an issue I've been wanting to discuss which is clearly going to affect our CSCS.

Before we start forking out the dough for something that "reduces" our impact on anthropogenic global warming, perhaps a conclusion should be reached on the actual scale and causes of global climate change.

Contrary to what Al Gore would like people to believe, scientific consensus on the causes, impacts, effects, scale, etc. of global climate change is marginal at best.

I'll be adding more links shortly. But let's get a discussion going.

Study conducted by MIT's "Center for Global Climate Change"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/25/global-warming-of-7c-could-kill-billions-this-century/

Professor Richard S. Lindzen, MIT, Atmospheric Physicist, Alfred P. Sloan Meteorologist was not consulted regarding the study.

Please read the entire article.

While I don't believe that climate change is being caused by man made CO2 emmisions, I still think we should capture the CO2. Why? Because it is too good of a resource to waster. I'd pipe it into Polytunnels used to grow crops for the city. The water wouldn't go amiss either.

I've always been wondering about the CO2 levels during Ice ages being higher. One would have to conclude that, if CO2 was as effective as is being claimed, the Ice would have to be very clean to ensure nearly all the energy is reflected.

You're absolutely right. CO2 is a natural resource, not necessarily a pollutant.

Of course the problem with us deciding it is the same as with any other politicized issue: we're not really qualified to decide. On the internet, that rarely if ever stops people from discussing it, though. So I ask merely what is taken for granted in other scientific debates, that we remember that. That isn't to say that we shouldn't debate it, or that our answers are invalid, though.

I would also like to separate this into two things: Global warming caused by carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, and biosphere damage caused by whatever else (Ex pollution etc). While one often causes the other, they are two separate categories in my opinion.

It seems that the disagreement probably stems from the first as opposed to the second type of climate change. I would also like to add that, in terms of numbers for each, we seem to be evenly matched, as Mike (judging from his posts) and I do think ACC is happening, while Locksley and Tobias don't.

Anyway, for what we know:

1. CO2 levels have risen rather rapidly over the past couple hundred years, to levels higher than they have been for many thousands of years.



Preindustrial was (at a high guess) 290, and they are currently at about 390. 100 ppm increase in the atmosphere means, in an atmosphere with 1.75e20 moles of gas (1 mole=6.02e23 particles), an increase of 1.75e16 moles, or 7.7e14 kg of CO2 total added. I believe we're in agreement that this is from burning coal/fossil fuels etc?

2. Temperature has risen, and the graph shown previously shows that (just using info from the graph) that a rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature, or a rise in temperature causes a rise in CO2, or they share a common cause.

Also, this debate is separate from whether or not ACC will be good for mankind as a whole or not. I'm unsure on that one, but I think it's pretty silly to say "Well, it's not happening, but if it were that would be good anyway". That's apologist talk, and there can still be apologists even if the side in question is correct (although I do not grant that ). I suggest anyone who holds a viewpoint like that picks one.

There are probably more things we could add to the list, so don't hesitate.

While none of us are climate scientists or policy makers, it is important that this topic be discussed in the context of our CSCS to prevent serious planning mistakes from occurring.

You made a good point, correlation does not equal causation. In fact, increased temperature is believed to cause increased CO2 emissions from the ocean. But the extent is difficult to determine. Not to mention the graph below indicates temperature weakly coincides with CO2 levels, or vise versa.

Carbon dioxide is also the least likely to contribute considerably to the greenhouse effect. In fact, water vapor is the primary culprit and vastly more "dangerous."

Even if CO2 were as dangerous as some make it out to be, 97% of CO2 emissions are natural (from oceans, soil respiration, animal/plant processes, and geologic degassing) while only 3% can be contributed to man. For more information regarding this, in addition to an extremely well done look at historical CO2 levels, take a look at the PowerPoint by Fred Goldberg, Associate Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
The Natural Source History of Atmospheric CO2 Fluctuations
http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork08/PowerPoint/Monday/goldberg.ppt

Taken from the link above:
During the Phanerozoic, CO2 levels have at times been more than 1,500% higher than present, but temperatures have never been more than 10C higher than present. So how does a projected 30% increase in CO2 produce a 7C temperature rise in their models? During the late Ordovician, there was an ice age with CO2 levels about 1000% of current levels. Hopefully the newspaper headlines don’t accurately represent the content of the article.

Well, I think one of the things that that graph shows is that the earth's climate really has 2 stable states: Hot and warm. It also shows me that the hot state is more stable than the warm. This means that it would be pretty easy to put it back into the warm phase. Without getting into the effects (or at least, without getting into the effects yet), it would seem that with CO2 levels so low, and the cold state so unstable, relatively, that a reasonably small influx of CO2 does have the potential to change the climate a good bit.

Something to remember about this graph is that A) it can't show relatively short term changes. For example, there is no noticeable lowering of global temperature at the time of the Cretacious-Tertiary mass extinction event.

And yes, I agree that since the planning of the CS is long term, we should have a plan and an agreement as to the probable course of earth's climate. I was just pointing out that we can't absolutely "know" anything in this area, since even the best of the best don't "know."

I do think there is an explanation for the fact that CO2 levels seem to follow Temperature on the graph, as opposed to the other way around: CO2 is sequestered mostly in the biosphere, and often, a drop will precede a lowering of temperature, which will kill off biomass, and then CO2 levels will rise, and then the temperature will restabilize at the higher level.

Actually, most of Earths history has been ice ages. That suggests to me that the cold state is more stable.

We're still in an ice age now, technically. The last time there was global flooding was a few thousand years ago, when the great North American ice sheet melted.

Terraformer- looked at the graph? 80% of it is in a warm state. That obviously says that the warm state is more stable. Anything before the scope of that graph is not relevant, because that would be before life became widespread on earth.

This is not an ice age- it is a cold period on that graph, yes, although certainly not an ice age. You know how I know? The American Northeast (Where I happen to live) is not frozen over, as it was during the last ice age.

btw, Locksley- do you have a reliable source for that graph? I made sure to get my info from reliable sources (IE peer-reviewed scientific journals, NOAA), while that seems to be from an anti-AGW site, correct me if I'm wrong.

http://www.rutgers.edu/

Rutgers State University of New Jersey. I also made sure to get my info from reliable sources.

EDIT: My first post had a section mentioning that our sources should be peer-reviewed journals, universities, etc, but I deleted it assuming it was a given.

During the last 'ice age', not all the world was frozen over. Do you know how I know we're in an ice age? Siberia is frozen over. If the whole planet has to be frozen over, then the last 'ice age' wasn't an ice age. Currently, ice sheets cover a significant portion of the northern and southern hemisphere. The definition of an ice age.

Yeah, shrinking ice is really an ice age. f "Any Ice anywhere" (since significant is a very ambiguous term.

There have been some polar ice caps on earth probably since the last warm period at the very least. That means a 5-10+ million year ice age.

Even ignoring whether climate change is occurring or not, you are an apologist.

Locksley- okay, just making sure. Thanks.